DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/24/2026 has been entered.
Some claims were previously rejoined at allowance. Because the rejoining was based on allowability no longer observed in light of new art submitted by applicant after the close of prosecution, the restriction is re-instituted as previously during prosecution, and claims marked ‘withdrawn’ in the most recent claim set are considered withdrawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 17-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier (US 9,126,346) in view of Wörner (DE 102 15 804), Andrews (US 6,141,875), and Audet (US 6,406,157) .
Regarding claim 1, Meier (US 9,126,346) discloses a personal care device such as hair cutter or tooth brush (See title “Body care device”), comprising a handle (14, 22, 18 figure 2) and a function head (16) supporting at least one personal care tool (13) , said function head being attached to said handle (via 16, see figure 2),
Meier does not disclose wherein at least one of said handle and said function head includes an outer metal shell formed in one piece with an integral, homogeneous, seamless structure having a ring-like or sleeve-like shape with closed annular cross-sections, wherein said outer metal shell includes at least one undercut portion. The handle is shown as a shell, but does not specify metal as the shell of the handle.
Meier does disclose that its outer metal shell includes [[a]] first lateral opening (where 28 is inserted) arranged at a lateral side of the shell, and wherein an electronic outer functional component is inserted into said first lateral opening (28 is such). Meier discloses a second opening at 20 where a battery module (34) or a tool is inserted into said second opening.
IN short, the difference between Meier and the present claim is that 20 opening is not ‘lateral’ and ‘opposite’ to the electronic hole 28, and the shell is not disclosed as “metal…integral, homogenous, seamless…”
Both of those features are prima facie obvious to change in Meier.
Metal Homogenous undercut shells with side openings are known
Wörner discloses a Personal care device such as hair cutter or tooth brush ([0001] “for cleaning teeth” therefore— per se a “personal care device”). Wörner discloses that it comprises a handle (16 figure 3; [0030 “handle 16…”) and a function head (“elastomeric head 22” [0031]; see figure 3 and 5) supporting at least one personal care tool (Cleaning pad 30/32 which is “for brushing teeth” [0042] which is per se ‘personal care’), said function head being attached to said
handle (see figure 3), wherein at least one of said handle and said function head includes an outer metal shell formed in one piece with an integral, homogeneous, seamless structure having a ring-like or sleeve-like shape with closed annular cross-sections (See the figure 3 of Wörner, discussed at [0046- 0047]: “handle 16 is preferably metal…steel or titanium…. [T]he handle 16 can be formed as a hollow part.”). As seen in figure 3, noting the above description of
the handle being metal and hollow—it is identical in essence to the claim and the idea of the present application.
Metal is known to be substitutable for plastic and is known to be a suitable handle material for razors and personal care items, as disclosed in Andrews US 6,141,875: “As can be seen in FIG. 25, handle portion 410 and base support structure 426 are preferably formed as single, continuous piece of material, which may be plastic (as shown by the cross-hatching in FIGS. 30-31), metal, any other suitable material or a combination thereof.” (Col 31, line 18+). Andrews further shows (Figures 24-27, inter alia) that handles are known to be contoured, have undercuts etc. as shown therein.
It would have been obvious to make a razor handle such as Meier’s to be hollow, annular in cross section, etc. in shape, and metal—since those are known contours and materials disclosed in Wörner. Metal is known to be more expensive but more durable than plastic, and is a known equivalent in this context, evidenced by its use in Wörner and the explicit teaching of selectability in the alternative given in Andrews.
Repositioning parts is obvious unless the function is changed by the repositioning – Where do those of ordinary skill make openings for batteries in handles
As noted above, Meier uses a battery door at the bottom of the handle (the ‘proximal’ end, furthest from the shaving head). Audet (US 6,406,157) discloses that it is known to place a battery opening door in the thin shell of a handle of a personal care device on the “back” which is opposed to the front side of the handle. “The present invention relates to grooming tools and more particularly to an eyebrow grooming tool that includes a molded plastic handle including a gripping portion, a battery compartment door in the back side thereof in connection with a battery compartment formed therein and housing a battery connector therein,” (Column 2, line 25~). See further, Audet “Molded plastic handle 12 includes a gripping portion 22, referring to FIG. 2), a battery compartment door 24 in the back side thereof in connection with a battery compartment 26 formed therein and housing a battery connector 28 therein, two eyebrow pencil storage tubes 30 (both shown in FIG. 1) formed into the bottom end 32 thereof, a brush portion 34 extending from bottom end 32 thereof, a razor blade cartridge holding assembly, generally designated 36 attached to a front end 38 of handle 12 with a tubular support arm 40.” (Col. 3 line 36+).
It would have been obvious to replace the ‘bottom’, proximal end door of Meier used to accept and release batteries, with a ‘back’ door, such as 24 shown in Audet, since that is a known position to place a battery door on the handle of a razor, and in the combination at issue, would provide a suitable additional location (bottom) for storing auxiliary implements—as shown in Audet. By moving the battery access to the ‘back’ the ‘bottom’ door can be used for an extra storage item like for eyebrow pencils, seen in Audet.
Regarding claim 4, the combination above creates a full metal shell as obvious, and therefore the openings at front and back of the handle are both fully bordered by the metal shell.
Claim 5 is also clearly readable of the above combination—the functional element of the front of Meier extends into the inside of the shell of metal (as combined in the art).
Regarding claim 17, see claim 1’s discussion supra. Further, the Meier disclosure shows at least in figure 5 that the insertion portions added to a shell are inserted to be ‘flush.’ This is sensible as a matter of ordinary skill, since stepped or jagged products would be uncomfortable, and the flushness shown in figure 5 between 28 and 18 shows that those of ordinary skill known how to make flush alignment couplings in this context, therefore it would have been obvious to include “an outer functional component … is flush with an outer surface of the outer metal shell ….”
Regarding claim 18, see claim 4 above, inter alia, the fully surrounding is shown in at least Meier and Audet, which uses a door at the ‘back’ to meet the claim here suggested.
Claims 19 and 20 are clearly readable on the present combination, as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights